Why Fathers Should Join the Fight for Universal Paid Leave
Photo credit:
When Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg said he would be taking time off from his cabinet position to spend time with his husband Chasten and his two new children, he was in both homophobic and misogynistic terms. The criticism came from people — mostly men — who falsely believe family leave and, by extension, child care are solely the province of women and inherently feminizing forms of labor.
But, as the secretary made clear in his response, raising a newborn is “joyful work. It’s wonderful work, but it’s definitely work.” Paternity leave helps fathers build a bond with their newborn and helps share the labor of child care more equally — all while, in households with parents of different genders, helping to reduce growing burnout and post-partum complications among new moms. Yet relatively few fathers take advantage of the guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid family leave required by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and those that do tend to take than do mothers — have ever taken at least two weeks paid family leave. Universal paid family leave could help resolve this disparity.
The U.S. is the among its wealthy peers to fail to guarantee universal paid family leave. While a growing number of U.S. states have some form of paid leave program, . And the small amount of unpaid leave guaranteed by the FMLA only covers of all U.S. employees. Compare that to countries like Japan, Austria, Norway, or Poland, all of which all offer U.S. parents from low-income households — particularly Black and Latinx parents — are also to be able to afford to stop working for very long, as long as that leave is unpaid.
While some employers might offer paid family leave policies, they tend to be wealthier and larger employers: Overall, in the U.S. have access to paid family leave. And even among those few companies that do offer paid leave, gender inequality persists. To be sure, workplace policies should offer time off for pregnancy complications or to recover from childbirth. But when it comes to parental or bonding leave, that must be available on an for men and women.
Yet, even while we’ve seen gains in this area in past years, still have not gotten the memo. Some still officially offer more leave to mothers than to fathers. Others merely implement their policies in a biased way — which is what happened to our client, Derek Rotondo, whose employer told him he had to prove his wife was physically incapacitated in order to take primary caregiver leave for his newborn son. (We represented him in a class action lawsuit, which was later settled.)
Employers may think that offering more leave to moms supports women employees, but in the long run, it only feeds the presumption that it is women who will — or should — take responsibility for childcare, stymying their opportunities for workplace advancement. And it feeds stigma against dads who do want to take leave.
The consequences of these persistent inequalities in caregiving were all too apparent during the pandemic, which saw women — especially low-income women and women of color — disproportionately to take on responsibility for remote schooling and fill other disruptions to childcare. In addition to the toll this has taken on families’ financial stability, the crisis has caused setbacks to workplace equality that it may take decades to overcome.
Universal paid family leave would help. Fathers who take paternity leave report stronger bonds and emotional connections with their children, performing not just the labor a newborn requires but sharing in the delight and promise of their early and formative months. But perhaps the biggest benefit shows up in mothers with partners who take paternity leave: like postpartum depression and, according to one study, for each month of leave their child’s father takes.
a fear of both social stigma and economic consequences as reasons they avoid paternity leave, but child care is a gender-neutral form of labor. Men are just as capable as women of providing the care required by a newborn and the benefits of doing so reach their entire household. Guaranteeing universal paid family leave could help reduce the sacrifices required of any parent, and fathers have a major role to play in making that dream a reality.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090